Jonathan Lock wins appeal

BillyBong SG

Primary school teacher Jonathan Lock has won his long-drawn legal battle which started as a minor dispute over a puny sum of about $60.

He will not have to pay the $120,000 legal bills he has been saddled with.

The Court of Appeal - the highest in the land - on Wednesday ordered all the different parties to bear their own costs leading up to the appeal.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who presided over the three-judge panel, also ruled that his former lawyer Andrew Hanam cannot bill Mr Lock, without the permission of the Appeal Court, while NTUC Income will have to pay for his Court of Appeal costs.

"This case should never have come this far. It would not, if the solicitors in this case had acted reasonably in the interests of their clients."
- Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
The CJ also directed the Singapore Law Society to determine if there is a case to hold an inquiry into Mr Hanam's professional conduct.

A vindicated Mr Lock said in a statement after the Appeal Court's judgement: "Although mistakes were made by several parties, I hope that from this landmark case, loopholes, procedures and management will be rectified.

"The common man needs to have a voice, so that no one will ever have to go through what my family and I had gone through."

Mr Hanam, who was also in court on Wednesday morning, said he was confident he would be exonerated by the Law Society, if there were to be an inquiry.

In delivering his judgement, Chief Justice Chan said the high-profile case has degenerated into a contest of wills.

"This case should never have come this far. It would not, if the solicitors in this case had acted reasonably in the interests of their clients," he said.

"A dispute involving a puny sum of about $60 escalated into contests of wills between two solicitors, resulting in wastage of judicial time and unnecessary expenditure in terms of court fees and disbursement which exceeded $100,000 even before the date of this hearing."

Noting that the fees from Mr Lock's ex-lawyer - up to the stage when Mr Hanam discharged himself - had ballooned to $150,000, the CJ said: "We are troubled by this.

"This is an incredible case. We have not seen one like it in all our years in the law. It has brought no credit to counsel involved and the legal system as a whole.

"All that the appellant wanted from the defendant was $375 being $485 for the cost of repairs to his car and $90 for loss of use, for which he eventually agreed to settle at $187.50.

"For this, he was put at risk of having to pay a sum in excess of $100,000 in legal fees."

On Tuesday, Justice V.K Rajah, one of the three appeal judges, rapped the lawyers involved in the case for escalating it from a simple traffic claim into a long, costly feud.

"You used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when all you needed was a nutcracker," he told the lawyer for NTUC Income, who had challenged an earlier order made by the mediation judge.

Inquiry into ex-counsel's conduct

The Chief Justice also said that in light of the short account given by Mr Lock's new lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, it is necessary to investigate Mr Hanam for "possible breach of his professional duties" by exposing his client to "unnecessary monetary risks and adverse legal consequences, apparently without his knowledge or consent."

He said he would direct the Registrar of the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Council of the Law Society to determine whether the Chairman of its Inquiry Committee should look into four areas regarding Mr Hanam's conduct under the Legal Profession Act.

The Inquiry Committee should find out if Mr Hanam had:

acted with Mr Lock's knowledge or consent in initiating enforcement proceedings in relation to the settlement
acted in the best interests of Mr Lock in seeking to enforce the settlement agreement
kept Mr Lock informed or had explained to him the risks involved in taking all the steps he did in the proceedings
acted inappropriately in sending Mr Lock a bill for $150,000 upon his discharge as counsel in the appeal.
Mr Lock has maintained that he was not kept in the loop about the case by Mr Hanam.

Asia1.com

BillyBong SG

Lawyers rapped by Court of Appeal judges

A SIMPLE traffic accident claim - initially settled through mediation for $188 - went up to the High Court and now, has landed in the highest court in the land.

It prompted one of the Court of Appeal judges to say yesterday: 'You used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when all you needed was a nutcracker.'

Justice V.K. Rajah was questioning the lawyer for NTUC Income, who had challenged the order made by the mediation judge.

The three-judge panel, which includes Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Justice Andrew Phang, will deliver its judgment today.

The insurer's lawyer, Mr Madan Asomull, had gone to the High Court arguing that the order by the mediation judge was not valid as it was made at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC), which he insisted was not a court of law.

The PDRC - now called [email protected] - was set up by the Subordinate Courts to deal with minor accident claims, with district judges playing the role of mediators.

But one case escalated into a long and costly battle and primary school teacher Jonathan Lock - initially awarded $188 through the PDRC - was unwittingly pulled into an unwieldy tangle.

He got saddled with legal bills of more than $100,000 after High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu agreed with NTUC Income.

After his case made headlines, NTUC Income held out an olive branch - on condition that Mr Lock drop his appeal.

Still, Mr Lock took the case all the way to the Court of Appeal, rejecting offers by the insurance giant to waive its legal costs of $45,000 and to give him $25,000 as goodwill.

As Mr Lock's new lawyer Joseph Chen explained to The Straits Times, if he succeeds, not only will NTUC Income have to pay costs, his former lawyer may also be held liable for the costs.

Mr Lock also maintains he was not kept in the loop about the case by his former lawyer, Mr Andrew Hanam.

Yesterday's appeal hearing was as much about Mr Lock's plight as it was about the legal issue of whether the PDRC was a court that can make binding orders.

Criticising the lawyers involved in Mr Lock's case, Justice Rajah said: 'This is a very simple case. Why has it conflagrated into a frolic by solicitors?'

Mr Asomull himself conceded that it was 'tragic' that resources are being wasted arguing 'matters that concerned a few hundred dollars or less'.

But he said that he went to the High Court because Mr Hanam was 'trigger happy' in taking out a writ of seizure and sale against Ms Jessiline Goh, the other party involved in the accident, for $1,188.

But CJ Chan noted that since NTUC Income had already paid up by the time, the writ would not have had any real effect and nothing could have been seized.

Justice Rajah said that he was 'completely flummoxed' that NTUC Income had asked for costs to be ordered against Mr Lock.

CJ Chan added that Mr Asomull should have asked for costs against the solicitors instead.

The judges also lobbed questions at Mr Asomull over his assertion that the PDRC was not a court.

CJ Chan said that what Mr Asomull was arguing for was contrary to the whole idea of mediation: which is to save time and costs.

Following Justice Lai's decision, all settlements reached at the PDRC now have to be endorsed by another judge - a process Justice Rajah said 'seemed absurd'.

Justice Rajah said he was puzzled how such a ruling would benefit NTUC Income as it meant more costs and inconvenience for insurers, lawyers and the public.

Mr Asomull said he was arguing it as a matter of law.

But Justice Phang noted that the law is not only about logic and technicality but also about justice and common sense.

Asia1.com